The first is a demonstrable danger to teens from social networks in terms of exacerbating depressions and can lead in a teen's melodramatic mind to untutored lessons in flying. (Science Daily: Negative experiences on Facebook linked to increased depression risk in young adults)
Perhaps there are two ways to take this: 1) Trolls are the Blue Meanies who destroy young lives or 2) Parents have a completely suck idea of what constitutes raising children.
A troll is formally defined as someone who will cheerfully write anonymously, always anonymously, to a woman, "I want to fuck you with a chainsaw."
We know they do this and there are lots of them. Think of trolls as soccer hooligans who somehow figured out how to count and then stole computers from somewhere.
The fact is there are lots of them so that's a fundamental of Internet Life, there are lots of major shithooks out there and they are crawling with more headworms than the entire Psychology Department in aggregate.
A parent is formally defined as someone who really doesn't get it at all and buys a computer for a soccer hooligan, all the while singing and praying, "Oh, no, my Johnny boy wouldn't act like an asshole online."
There's quite a bit of abdicated responsibility from parents in the New Age which looks one hell of a lot like the Dark Age but with a shitload of non-functioning LEDs for things which don't work anymore. As proof of that position, observe how Mark Zuckerberg's Victorian goons censored an image of the little Vietnamese girl whose clothes had been burned off her by napalm. That picture was censored for nudity.
Are you seriously going to tell me any parent in the country has a spine when that sort of blatant whitewashing is permitted?
Don't be trying to blame that one on Republicans as it comes from the ultra-liberal Silicone Sally in Beverly Hills who believes in plastic boobs but no vaccinations ... and never anything which comes anywhere close to responsible parenting.
I live my life and I have no problem with your kid watching. If the kid is of the right age for it, maybe I look like Humphrey Bogart all covered in leeches but trying to do the right thing for Miss Hepburn. (Yeah, yeah, a little latitude, please)
If your kid is not the right age for it then I will look like Harlequin Man, the red-eyed savage born in the fiery depths of Hell to corrupt children.
That decision isn't mine but yours, Mumbling Mama. Choose wisely since you know my act won't change, soccer hooligans are incapable of changing, and Silicone Sally only goes back for more plastic in her dream of looking like Joan Rivers or someone else from the cast of "Brazil." (Visualize, if you will, any Jenner or Kardashian in twenty years. Note: your body may start shaking uncontrollably. Be careful out there.)
I can't protect your kid and, if you're not willing to do it, no-one can.
Here's another on the theme of social networks, mass marketing, and making every product look exactly the same as every other. (Science Daily: The perfect car, according to science)
Through such mass marketing study and with a big enough sample size, it's relatively easy to deduce generic standards which will appear to 'the greatest good for the greatest number' but that concept only works for making margarine and Wonder Bread for which the specific purpose is making all identical. For design of things humans will incorporate into our lives in significant ways, it's quite likely the worst possible way to go.
Visualize Buckminster Fuller and his Dymaxion automobile or his geodesic dome. Do you seriously think he contacted any 'marketing experts' on his design specifications. What could possibly be more inhibiting for designers than some set of arbitrary corporate standards (i.e. the only kind extant).
Saving the most disturbing for last, we have an actual technique for creating impressions about faces with an MRI machine. Let that percolate and bubble in yer brain a little as you consider the ramifications. (Science Daily: With MRI technique, brain scientists induce feelings about faces)
Note specifically this is not sci-fi and the article is for science which was published yesterday. Note also: it's only MD's who are off on Thursdays as PhD's still keep working.
We're quite sure you can visualize demonic examples of the use of this technique to influence, say, elections or some such. The science is the study of how facial memory is actually stored in the brain but the extension is whether that can be modified or 'seeded' and you can take that thinking as far as you will since there's one thing you know for sure about the scientists: they will.
Do NOT take that as Luddism since it's the task of every scientist to do that. Your job is to understand it ... before you go for the pitchforks and the flaming torches. Maybe you will still go for them but at least you will know why instead of being directed by some stiff in Texas who probably can't even read the paper himself.
Perhaps there are two ways to take this: 1) Trolls are the Blue Meanies who destroy young lives or 2) Parents have a completely suck idea of what constitutes raising children.
A troll is formally defined as someone who will cheerfully write anonymously, always anonymously, to a woman, "I want to fuck you with a chainsaw."
We know they do this and there are lots of them. Think of trolls as soccer hooligans who somehow figured out how to count and then stole computers from somewhere.
The fact is there are lots of them so that's a fundamental of Internet Life, there are lots of major shithooks out there and they are crawling with more headworms than the entire Psychology Department in aggregate.
A parent is formally defined as someone who really doesn't get it at all and buys a computer for a soccer hooligan, all the while singing and praying, "Oh, no, my Johnny boy wouldn't act like an asshole online."
There's quite a bit of abdicated responsibility from parents in the New Age which looks one hell of a lot like the Dark Age but with a shitload of non-functioning LEDs for things which don't work anymore. As proof of that position, observe how Mark Zuckerberg's Victorian goons censored an image of the little Vietnamese girl whose clothes had been burned off her by napalm. That picture was censored for nudity.
Are you seriously going to tell me any parent in the country has a spine when that sort of blatant whitewashing is permitted?
Don't be trying to blame that one on Republicans as it comes from the ultra-liberal Silicone Sally in Beverly Hills who believes in plastic boobs but no vaccinations ... and never anything which comes anywhere close to responsible parenting.
I live my life and I have no problem with your kid watching. If the kid is of the right age for it, maybe I look like Humphrey Bogart all covered in leeches but trying to do the right thing for Miss Hepburn. (Yeah, yeah, a little latitude, please)
If your kid is not the right age for it then I will look like Harlequin Man, the red-eyed savage born in the fiery depths of Hell to corrupt children.
That decision isn't mine but yours, Mumbling Mama. Choose wisely since you know my act won't change, soccer hooligans are incapable of changing, and Silicone Sally only goes back for more plastic in her dream of looking like Joan Rivers or someone else from the cast of "Brazil." (Visualize, if you will, any Jenner or Kardashian in twenty years. Note: your body may start shaking uncontrollably. Be careful out there.)
I can't protect your kid and, if you're not willing to do it, no-one can.
Here's another on the theme of social networks, mass marketing, and making every product look exactly the same as every other. (Science Daily: The perfect car, according to science)
Through such mass marketing study and with a big enough sample size, it's relatively easy to deduce generic standards which will appear to 'the greatest good for the greatest number' but that concept only works for making margarine and Wonder Bread for which the specific purpose is making all identical. For design of things humans will incorporate into our lives in significant ways, it's quite likely the worst possible way to go.
Visualize Buckminster Fuller and his Dymaxion automobile or his geodesic dome. Do you seriously think he contacted any 'marketing experts' on his design specifications. What could possibly be more inhibiting for designers than some set of arbitrary corporate standards (i.e. the only kind extant).
Saving the most disturbing for last, we have an actual technique for creating impressions about faces with an MRI machine. Let that percolate and bubble in yer brain a little as you consider the ramifications. (Science Daily: With MRI technique, brain scientists induce feelings about faces)
Note specifically this is not sci-fi and the article is for science which was published yesterday. Note also: it's only MD's who are off on Thursdays as PhD's still keep working.
We're quite sure you can visualize demonic examples of the use of this technique to influence, say, elections or some such. The science is the study of how facial memory is actually stored in the brain but the extension is whether that can be modified or 'seeded' and you can take that thinking as far as you will since there's one thing you know for sure about the scientists: they will.
Do NOT take that as Luddism since it's the task of every scientist to do that. Your job is to understand it ... before you go for the pitchforks and the flaming torches. Maybe you will still go for them but at least you will know why instead of being directed by some stiff in Texas who probably can't even read the paper himself.
No comments:
Post a Comment